State v. Townsel

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Townsel

506 S.W.2d 59, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1559

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 4, 1974

DocketNo. KCD 26672

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 506 S.W.2d 59 (State v. Townsel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Townsel, 506 S.W.2d 59, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1559 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a conviction before a jury of assault with intent to commit great bodily harm and a sentence of three years. The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. He argues that there was no showing of the use of force or a weapon which would constitute an assault under § 559.190, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.

The alleged assault was accomplished by the beating of the victim and by spraying her with chemical “mace”. It is clear that a conviction for assault may be sustained where an attack is made by the use of hands and fists. State v. Himmelmann, 399 S.W.2d 58 (Mo.1966); State v. Gillespie, 336 S.W.2d 677 (Mo.1960); State v. Crossman, 464 S.W.2d 36 (Mo.1971). There being no contradictory evidence as to the basic facts of the assault, the appellant’s contention must be denied.

[60]*60An opinion in this case would have no precedential value, and therefore, under Rule 84.16(b), V.A.M.R., the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a conviction before a jury of assault with intent to commit great bodily harm and a sentence of three years. The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. He argues that there was no showing of the use of force or a weapon which would constitute an assault under § 559.190, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.

The alleged assault was accomplished by the beating of the victim and by spraying her with chemical “mace”. It is clear that a conviction for assault may be sustained where an attack is made by the use of hands and fists. State v. Himmelmann, 399 S.W.2d 58 (Mo.1966); State v. Gillespie, 336 S.W.2d 677 (Mo.1960); State v. Crossman, 464 S.W.2d 36 (Mo.1971). There being no contradictory evidence as to the basic facts of the assault, the appellant’s contention must be denied.

[60]*60An opinion in this case would have no precedential value, and therefore, under Rule 84.16(b), V.A.M.R., the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 S.W.2d 59, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-townsel-moctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack